Evidence of credit card hacking cannot be seized under a search warrant that authorizes only the search for illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia, the Supreme Court ruled.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao dated 12 February 2026, the Supreme Court’s Third Division acquitted Edgar Silvano of violating Republic Act 8484, or the Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998.

Section 9(e) of the law prohibits possession of counterfeit access devices, including fake credit cards.

The National Bureau of Investigation had received information that Silvano was allegedly involved in illegal drug activities and computer hacking, particularly credit card fraud.

To verify the report, the NBI instructed an informant to buy methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu from Silvano. Laboratory testing later confirmed the substance was shabu.

The NBI then obtained a search warrant for violation of Republic Act 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, authorizing agents to search for shabu and other drug-related items.

During the search of Silvano’s residence, agents seized several items, including computers, ATM cards, laptops, a money counter, a dry seal and a card-skimming device.

They also recovered two American Express credit cards bearing the name “V S Tan.”

An American Express manager later confirmed that the cards were counterfeit because their numbers did not match records of the original account holder.

A Regional Trial Court convicted Silvano of possessing counterfeit access devices. The Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, saying the items were validly seized under the plain view doctrine even though they were not listed in the search warrant.

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction.

The high court said authorities may generally seize only items specifically described in a search warrant.

Under the plain view doctrine, evidence not specified in a warrant may be seized if officers are lawfully present in the area, the discovery is inadvertent and the incriminating nature of the object is immediately apparent.

The Court found that these requirements were not satisfied.

It noted that the warrant covered only illegal drugs and related paraphernalia and did not authorize the seizure of credit cards or other access devices.

While NBI agents were lawfully inside Silvano’s residence, the Court said the discovery of the cards was not accidental because agents already had prior information linking him to alleged credit card fraud and hacking but did not secure a warrant covering those offenses.

The Court also noted that the credit cards were inside a non-transparent bag and could not be seen until the bag was opened.

Even then, the cards did not appear counterfeit on their face, and their alleged connection to a crime became apparent only after verification by American Express.

The Supreme Court ruled that the credit cards were unlawfully seized and therefore inadmissible as evidence.

Without the cards, the prosecution failed to prove Silvano’s guilt under RA 8484.